Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.4.2-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Honourable Members, first of all I thank Mrs Breyer for her work on this important proposal. It is less than a year ago that we reached an agreement on a new European water policy, and the decision that we are discussing today is an important first step in substantiating the Water Framework Directive. I am sure that we can agree that one of the main achievements of this directive during conciliation was to make the central political commitments of the OSPAR Convention legally binding and operational. This major success of the European Parliament has within a very short time introduced this visionary objective of a long-term protection of sensitive marine eco-systems into our Community policy. It has always been my position that the Commission is committed to coming forward with specific proposals for measures for priority and priority hazardous substances, and I have done everything possible to allow this to be put in place as soon as possible.
I was asked about the candidate countries' involvement, and this is a crucial issue for me. Following my initiative, the Member States and the Commission agreed two weeks ago on a common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive. The implementation efforts will not only involve all stakeholders but also candidate countries, just as the meeting two weeks ago involved not only the water directors of Member States and the Commission but also those from candidate countries.
Let me turn to the other proposed amendments on the recitals and the articles. I can accept these amendments as long as they are in line with the Water Framework Directive. I can accept Amendments Nos 2 to 6, 8 to 11, 13, 15, 21 to 23 and 26. In addition I can accept in part Amendments Nos 12, 16 and 25 and in principle Amendments Nos 1, 7, 24, 28 and 29. I do not accept Amendment No 14 because it is fully and more precisely covered by Amendment No 13.
By way of conclusion, I would like to say that it is in the Commission's interests that measures for these substances are taken swiftly. Following adoption of this list I will ensure that the ensuing work on measures for phasing out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances is carried out according to the environmental objectives and timetable set out in the directive. My services have already started preparatory work on this.
I am seeking your support for this work and I sincerely hope that we show the same speed and determination in the implementation of the new Water Framework Directive for the benefit of the aquatic environment in Europe.
(
)
On 16 January this year the Commission presented its proposal for the list of priority substances, including priority hazardous substances, only three weeks after the Water Framework Directive came into force. Despite this short time frame I believe that the Commission was able to come up with an amended proposal which is ambitious and balanced.
This leads me directly to the key issue under discussion in the Committee on the Environment. The identification of the priority hazardous substances and the introduction of a review clause has been discussed intensively.
Let me also discuss this list in a more general way, without referring to it substance by substance. The proposed list is not designed for eternity. In fact the Water Framework Directive speaks of a dynamic process which foresees a review of the list, including the identification of priority hazardous substances, every four years at the latest. This implies that the procedure for selection will be continuously improved and the scientific evidence as well as other developments will be taken on board. Indeed the guidelines you have suggested in several amendments will help us to move in the right direction. We will naturally take into account the scientific assessments that are under preparation under various Community instruments at the moment. Thus we must ensure that the substances that we identify as priority hazardous are based on the same criteria and thresholds in both the water and the chemicals policy.
I have noted that Amendments Nos 20 and 27 propose to reduce the deadline for the specific review to 1 July 2002 or one year after adoption of the list. This is a very short time frame and will be extremely challenging, in particular because some of the scientific assessments might not be completely finalised by then, and I do not want to commit myself to unrealistic deadlines. Mr Lange asked me if I could guarantee a review of the list during my term of office. Yes, I reiterate my commitment to this, but the twelve months might be too tight, thus leading to insufficient quality of this first review and I am not interested in that.
In short, I am committed to improving the dynamic instrument for setting priorities and identifying priority hazardous substances, in particular substances of concern that may emerge from other relevant Community initiatives and international agreements in the future.
Nevertheless, the Commission is reluctant to accept Amendments Nos 17, 18 and 19, as those three substances would not fulfil all the criteria. At the same time the proposed selection of these plant protection products as priority substances will ensure the sustainable protection of drinking water resources.
As regards the deadline for a review of certain priority substances, I reiterate my commitment to review the list as soon as possible. However, Amendments Nos 20 and 27 in their current wording impose too tight a framework for achieving the quality of work that I consider indispensable."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples